I am not a lawyer, and I am not asking legal advice. I have been engaged
in
an ongoing argument about the law, and would like to ask those who know
more
than I do if they have any opinion regarding a few issues. I know that
laws
vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I will make no legal use of any
answers to my questions --
Here is the situation.
Person A, who is approximately 30 years old, engages in an online
interstate
romance with a person who represents herself as an underaged girl {named
Earl}.
Eventually he gasses up the car, buys sex toys, condoms, and alcohol, and
heads to Earls house for some sex at a local motel.
He is busted before he actually meets Earl, because it turns out that
Earls mother is a hooker for the FBI, and he's been talking to Earls mother
for some time.
I can't figure out exactly what he was charged with, but he is acquitted.
Person A admits during testimony that he planned to have sex with Earl
but said ok to just a *****, but he is acquitted anyway. A member of
the
jury says that they all agree that he did something wrong, because Earl is
dirt ugly as a male or female,and they believe he was entrapped by the
police.
First questions:
1) Ignoring the entrapment issue, does this sound like attempted male
rape, even though he never actually even saw Earl nude?
2) Does driving off with sex toys, condoms, and alcohol constitute the
"act"
which is apparently necessary in order for a crime to have taken place?
Next, we have person B, who announces in an online forum that person A is a
well hung stud, and then goes on to state very clearly his intent to have
anal sex
with person A.
My next question involves the strength of the case A could make against B
for libel, under these circumstances. Does a libel case fail to meet some
obvious tests here?
I wonder if my friend Earl still has a sore rectum ?
Why don't you write me any more Earl ?
.
|
